Cortez Deandre Green's supervised release has been revoked by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a 24-month prison sentence imposed by a lower court. This decision comes after Green was found to have violated the terms of his release by allegedly participating in the theft of tires from his former employer. The ruling affects Green, who had previously been on supervised release following a conviction for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon.

The case, officially titled United States v. Cortez Green, was filed under docket number 26-10645. Green's legal troubles began when he pleaded guilty in 2022 to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, leading to a 37-month prison sentence followed by a three-year term of supervised release. His release began on August 20, 2024, but this is the second time it has been revoked.

Initially, in September 2025, Green’s probation officer filed a petition to revoke his supervised release due to violations including the unlawful use of controlled substances and new criminal charges. Green admitted to these violations, resulting in a revocation that imposed a new 24-month supervised release term. However, just months later, in December 2025, another petition was filed against him, leading to the current appeal.

The second petition accused Green of failing to comply with location monitoring conditions, providing false information about his employment status, and committing new crimes. Specifically, it alleged that security footage showed him stealing tires from his workplace, a tire wholesaler. The Mobile Police Department subsequently charged him with theft of property in the third degree, a Class D felony in Alabama.

During the revocation hearing, Green admitted to some violations but denied involvement in the tire theft. The government presented evidence, including security video footage that showed Green in the area where the tires were stored and later sticking his head out from behind tire stacks after the theft occurred. The operations manager from the tire company testified that the tires were rolled out to a truck and delivered to an unauthorized address, further implicating Green.

After reviewing the evidence, the district court found that the government had proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Green had participated in the theft. The court stated that it found “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Green had helped his co-worker steal the tires. The court also noted that Green had a history of violations under supervision and emphasized the importance of maintaining trust in individuals on supervised release.

Green's advisory guidelines suggested a sentence of 8 to 14 months. However, the government sought the maximum 24-month sentence, which the court ultimately imposed. The court justified the upward variance by stating that Green's conduct demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness and that it was crucial to deter similar behavior in others on supervised release.

The court ruled that the decision to revoke Green’s supervised release and the length of the sentence were reasonable given the circumstances. Green challenged the sentence's reasonableness, arguing that his violations were technical and did not warrant such a severe punishment. However, the court maintained that the seriousness of the theft while on supervised release warranted a stringent response.

In its opinion, the court noted, “The totality of [Green’s] conduct and demeanor under supervision” justified the lengthy sentence. It emphasized that stealing from an employer while on supervised release was particularly troubling and detrimental to the trust placed in individuals in similar situations.

The court's ruling reinforces the importance of compliance with supervised release conditions and the consequences of failing to adhere to them. This decision serves as a reminder that violations can lead to significant penalties, including extended prison sentences.

Looking ahead, Green's case could potentially be appealed to a higher court, although the specifics of any further legal action were not detailed in the court filing. The outcome of this case may also influence how future cases involving supervised release violations are handled, particularly concerning the balance between rehabilitation and accountability.